JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - This is a revision under Section 38-B of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act moved by Collector, Puri against the orders of Tahasildar, Nayagarh in O.E.A. Case No. 32/68-69 dated 15-1-1971 settling 11.08 acres of land in favour of opposite parties under Sections 6 and 7. In the 1932-33 Record-of-Right, the opposite parties are recorded as sevayats in possession and the intermediary Gopinath Jew Marfat Rajsarkar. The kissam is Debottar Tanki. An appeal was filed before the Addl. District Magistrate. It was dismissed for default by his order dated 2-9-1972 in Appeal Case 19/71. 2. Standing Counsel argues that the estate was declared as trust estate under Section 57-A of the O.L.R. Act in Misc Case No. 79/77 dated 22-2-1972. As such he claims that either the Marfatdar or the deity alone can claim lands under Sections 6 and 7 and not the Sevayats. 3. Sri A.B. Misra, Advocate appearing for the O.Ps argues that the lands were settled with O.Ps on lease principles on payment of Salami. In subsequent settlement operation also the land has been recorded in their names and the order has become final. No appeal has been filed against this decision. 4. He further refers to an order dated 4-12-1968 of the Tribunal which declared this to be private estate and not a trust estate. Again this O.J.C. 1082 and 1083 of 1969 were filed in the High Court. Hi Court declined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal dated 4-12-1968 and the writ applications were dismissed on 30-6-1970. 5. In 1971 one Arakhit Das filed a petition under Section 57-A of the O.L.R. Act claiming that he was a temporary trustee of this deity in 1962. Shri Misra points out that under section 27 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act maximum five years time is given to any temporary trustee. In any case his appointment was stayed by the High Court as well as by the Assistant Endowment Commissioner. There was no notice to the O.Ps. 6. O.Ps filed a writ in the High Court, Endowment Commissioner was made a party. The latter conceded that 1978 order declaring this as trust estate will not apply to this land. Advocate General also conceded this point in the High Court. 7. There was no notice to the O.Ps. 6. O.Ps filed a writ in the High Court, Endowment Commissioner was made a party. The latter conceded that 1978 order declaring this as trust estate will not apply to this land. Advocate General also conceded this point in the High Court. 7. Shri Misra further quotes from the Settlement Report of Nayagarh State of 1932-33 wherein it has been explained that Rajsarkar has been declared as Marfatdar in almost all cases of deities and certain individuals have been declared as Sevayats in possession on the ground that persons had assigned their own lands to the deities. In some cases such as Bhagabat Ghar, the villagers have been declared as Sevayats in possession. 8. He further relied on Article 168 of the Settlement. Report which gives the list of all major an minor deities in the State. All the major chides were managed by the Debottar Department and the minor deities, were supervised by the same Department. Gopinath Jew involved in this case is not found in the list of major or minor deities. 9. In the 146. Cr.P.C proceeding in Misc. Case 53 of 1963 it was declared by order dated 23-3-1964 that the O. Ps were in possession of the disputed lands. The deity was not a party in that ease. This decision has not been upset by any Civil Court. 10. In 1965 the land vested in Government. In 1968 it was declared that the trust was not a public trust. Under Section 13-A(e) of the O.E.A. Act. Tahasildar settled this land on the O.Ps on lease principles on 15-1-1971. The appeal was dismissed. In Case No. 108/74 a review application was filed before the Tahasildar. This was also dismissed. 11. Sri Misra further argues that over 12 years have passed since the order of settlement was made and therefore there must be limitation to upset such order. 12. Section 38-A provides a retrospective effect from one year. Section 38-B is silent on this issue. He points out that in the original Act of 1973 there was a limitation of one year for such revision by Board of Revenue and this was removed subsequently. 12. Section 38-A provides a retrospective effect from one year. Section 38-B is silent on this issue. He points out that in the original Act of 1973 there was a limitation of one year for such revision by Board of Revenue and this was removed subsequently. He relies on 74 I.T.R. 642, AIR 1953 Nagpur 185 and AIR 1976 Orissa page 52 to show that unless Legislature indicates to the contrary, any legislation will have only prospective effect and proceedings started before the amendment will not come under the mischief of the amendment. 13. He argues that Section 38-B provides for revision of statutory orders and not those issued under the executive instructions and for granting lease. He also points out that the revision petition does not seek to revise the appellate order dated 2-9-1972 which has merged with the original order dated 15-1-1971 of Tahasildar. 14. He also points out that Section 38-B occurring in Chapter VI deals with review of cases of compensation only and not all the provisions of the O.E.A. Act. 15. Standing Counsel points out that Sevayats cannot file application under Sections 6 and 7, R.O.R. is in favour of the deity. O. Ps have no locus standi. Even if the deity is declared to be privileged raiyat under the O.L.R. Act, the land should be recorded in deity's name and the O. Ps be recorded as tenants. 16. He further points out that retrospective effect of Section 38-B is obvious. Adverse possession in respect of Government land accrues on completion of 30 years. 17. The Standing Counsel files an affidavit signed by Arkhit Das stating that he continues as trustee and he is doing Seva Puja and giving accounts. He has inducted other Bhag tenants for cultivating the land. But nobody in giving usufruct to the deity. Therefore, the Standing Counsel argues that the opposite parties are not in possession of the land inspite of the order under Section 146 of the Cr.P.C. 18. Standing Counsel argues that in the Settlement of 1903, 1917 and 1933 the land has always been recorded in the name of Gopinath Jew Marfatdar Rajasarkar Sebayat Lingaraj the farther of O. Ps 19. Sri A.B. Misra, Lawyer for the O. Ps says that in the latest Settlement Patta has been given in the name of O. Ps. Standing Counsel argues that in the Settlement of 1903, 1917 and 1933 the land has always been recorded in the name of Gopinath Jew Marfatdar Rajasarkar Sebayat Lingaraj the farther of O. Ps 19. Sri A.B. Misra, Lawyer for the O. Ps says that in the latest Settlement Patta has been given in the name of O. Ps. He further points out that Arkhit Das has not filed appeal as trustee. 20. In Misc. Case 53/63 under Section 146, Cr.P.C. deity is not a party. Order passed is in favour of O. P. No civil suit has been filed thereafter. Arkhit Das attempted to pursue this case under the Hindu Religious Endowment Act as this case filed before the Tribunal was rejected and upheld in the High Court. 21. I find that these lands belong to deity and the O. Ps are recorded as Sevayats in possession in respect of these lands. 22. From the High Court decision quoted below in this para it is also clear that the deity is a private deity. Declaring as a public trust under Section 57-A of the O.L.R. Act will have no effect on these lands as has been conceded by the Advocate General and Endowment Commissioner in the High Court in O.J.C. 1185 of 1979. Private deity's lands vest in Govt under Section 3 of the O.E.A. Act 23. In view of this decision in O.J.C. quoted above, in respect of disputed lands, the deity cannot claim the status of a privileged raiyat and except to be recorded as such with right to induct tenant. 24. It is also clear from the R.O.R. that O.Ps are Sevayats in possession of these lands. Such possession has also been confirmed in Section 146, Cr.P.C proceedings which is now final as it was not questioned in Civil Court till now. 25. I would, therefore, reject the revision petition and uphold the order dated 15-1-1971 of the Tahasildar setting the land with the O. Ps 26. I do not understand how Arkhita Das has come to this court to file an affidavit. Standing Counsel should not have taken initiative to allow him to intervene in this fashion. Arkhit Das's behaviour throughout the case is suspect. 27. I do not understand how Arkhita Das has come to this court to file an affidavit. Standing Counsel should not have taken initiative to allow him to intervene in this fashion. Arkhit Das's behaviour throughout the case is suspect. 27. It is true, as pointed out by the Standing Counsel in the Settlement of 1903, 1917 and 1933 the land is recorded in the name of the deity But when the Tribunal declared that the deity is not a public trust. It becomes a private deity whose estate vests in the Government. We cannot create this estate once again by recording the land in the name of the deity, thereby nullifying this vesting. Such a privilege is allowed only to deities which are declared as public trusts. It is, therefore, right that in the current Settlement deity's name is not recorded. 28. I have held in O.E.A. R.C. 29/79 that Section 38-B will apply even in cases of lease given under Executive Instructions. I do not accept the view that it has no retrospective effect or that Section 38-B is confined only to compensation matters under the O.E.A. Act because it comes in Chapter VI. A plain reading of this Section shows that it covers the entire Act. Removal of one year limitation for revision under section 38-B of the 1979 Act makes it obvious that revision can be made irrespective of the time which has elapsed since the original order is passed. 29. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed